What do you believe happens when we die

monara · 07-10-2020 01:52PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I take it so, that you've never heard of the flying spaghetti monster (sauce be upon Him)

No but I rather like the idea of making a god in my own image.:pac:

El_Duderino 09 · 07-10-2020 01:54PM

monara wrote: »

ok. We could get together on this. I rather like the idea of creating a god in my own image.:)

Work away. The Christians have already put in loads of the leg-work. The template is there.

monara · 07-10-2020 01:58PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Prayers are answered all the time. It's just that often the answer is "no".

Or just F**k off.:pac:

smacl · 07-10-2020 02:03PM

monara wrote: »

I can't imagine nothingness. I have been oblivious and sleep soundly every night but I can't imagine nothingness; or infinity or eternity for that matter. Even a simple statement like "nothing comes from nothing" leaves me perplexed.:)

The nothingness in this context is no more than the permanent loss of our own subjective consciousness. Others live on after we're gone and the world will keep turning just fine without us so no different to any other form of personal oblivion other than it is permanent. Easy to imagine but possibly harder to contemplate and become reconciled with. Fear of death is natural so too are the many stories and legends of cheating death common to most cultures. Personally, I see no reason to believe one of these stories over the other, or to believe any of them for that matter.

smacl · 07-10-2020 02:06PM

monara wrote: »

Or just F**k off.:pac:

Ever so slightly different messiah there methinks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSdXtDjM4lI

monara · 07-10-2020 02:38PM

smacl wrote: »

The nothingness in this context is no more than the permanent loss of our own subjective consciousness. Others live on after we're gone and the world will keep turning just fine without us so no different to any other form of personal oblivion other than it is permanent. Easy to imagine but possibly harder to contemplate and become reconciled with. Fear of death is natural so too are the many stories and legends of cheating death common to most cultures. Personally, I see no reason to believe one of these stories over the other, or to believe any of them for that matter.

ok but I still can't imagine nothingness. I was trying to think of it apart from my own loss of consciousness which of itself would be of no interest to anyone but myself.

Peregrinus · 07-10-2020 02:42PM

monara wrote: »

ok but I still can't imagine nothingness. I was trying to think of it apart from my own loss of consciousness which of itself would be of no interest to anyone but myself.

And, by definition, of no interest to yourself either.

saabsaab · 07-10-2020 02:54PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Only if you assume the "nothingness" is the default and the "somethingness" therefore needs to be explained or puzzled out.

I do not share that assumption. I see no reason to assume either. It is equally likely to me that "somethingness" is the default and it would be "nothingness" that would be weird or puzzling.

That one is difficult to imagine and the other not difficult to imagine says precisely nothing about the question however. It is irrelevant entirely. What our brains are good at, or bad at, conceiving places no constraints on reality.

I don't agree. That something exists at all like this universe is amazing. Where when or how did this happen at all? Even if you believe that there was a 'big bang' 13 billion years ago you have to ask where or how did this happen form noithing.

monara · 07-10-2020 02:58PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your post was an unreadable mess I am afraid. Between your formatting and your decision to ignore things as being off topic (not your call) there is not much left to reply to. Perhaps you can contact a moderator or someone for instruction on how to use the QUOTE function correctly? I will pick out what I can from the rubble:

I gave you examples of how this can happen. You decided to declare them off topic and not acknowledge them. But to repeat what you ignored: We tend to ignore the majority of data that does not fit a pattern and notice only what we imagine does fit the pattern. And hence see a pattern that is not there. This is how people can think prayer works, that taxi drivers are bad, or that they are psychic.

It is called confirmation bias. We see data that fits our pre-conceived notion of a pattern and simple "miss" the data that does not. Our brain is actually evolved to do this. We can imagine a pattern from a small amount of data. We do not need to see the entire leopard behind a tree to discern there is a lepord there. We see a bit of fur and a few spots and our brain fills in the blanks.

And, for the same reason as "agency detection" our brain has evolved towards false positives rather than false negatives too, given that a false negative gets you killed when a false positive usually would not.

Then you have only half understood science it would seem. One great field to use as an example here is epidemiology. Or medical trials on drugs. This is an example of good science. Here we might think a medicine or treatment works because we think we have seen patterns that suggest it to be so. But when we do actual trials and science on it, we often find it does nothing or.... in some cases.... is actually making things worse!

Thinking there are patterns there which are not, and confirmation bias, are two things the methodology of science is designed to negate.

That is your conclusions. Nothing I have said however suggests that, or suggests I think that. You have made this bit up entirely on your own without anything from me.

Much flora and fauna are so suited to their "task" or environment or life process that people like creationists use it as evidence they must have been designed for purpose. I do not see the world as they do but I have enough empathy and sympathy for their way of thinking that I can understand it without declaring they are fit for a mental institution.

When some life cycle, or some process, or some behaviour in the animal or floral kingdoms seems so incredibly contrived.... then the impression that it was intentionally designed that way does not suggest mental illness on the part of an observer like for example William Paley. At best it simply suggests mental laziness.

It was you who brought Darwin up though, not me. So strange for you to tell me you do not understand my reference to him when it was not me who made one.

For it to be a "Rub" you would need to establish we do have some kind of "spirit part" in the first place. The issue is when people wonder where it "goes" no one has established it was "there" in the first place anyway. It is like wondering where the "Light part" of a candle "goes" when the candle stops burning. The light does not "go" anywhere. Rather it was an emergent attribute of the burning process and is simply not being produced any more.

So this thing you call "spirit" could be similar. It might not actually be "there" in any meaningful sense but is rather just something emergent and produced by the human processes and simply stops being produced when those processes stop.

Sorry about the mess. I am new to this. I dont know how to reply to parts of posts (which indeed you do very well) and am trying to find out how. When I have learned how to do this, I will reply to your post.

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-10-2020 03:26PM

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't agree. That something exists at all like this universe is amazing.

To you. That's the point I was making. It is an entirely personal subjective response to the reality you perceive. But it says nothing ABOUT that reality OTHER than your response to it.

But you being amazed there is "something" does not mean "nothing" is the default and there being "something" is actually remarkable. It seems that way to you is all. Perhaps there being "something" is the default and is not at all remarkable. And there being "Nothing" would be truly weird and unusual and remarkable or even impossible. Who knows?

The awe we might feel at reality around us should pretty much NEVER be used as a basis for assuming anything factual about that reality.

saabsaab wrote: »

Even if you believe that there was a 'big bang' 13 billion years ago you have to ask where or how did this happen form noithing.

But we do not know it "happened from nothing", thats the problem. The Big bang was the sudden expansion of a singularity of infinite density and mass. That is not "nothing". It is as much the opposite of nothing as I am able to imagine.

To my knowledge we have no evidence that suggests there ever was "nothing". We simply do not know whether there ever was, or not. It is an open question.

And until someone answers that question, I will neither assume there ever was nothing, nor will I assume there always was something. I remain neutral and open on the question.

We do have a resident poster who claims to be a Theoretical Physicist, or a secondary school teacher, or both. He usually drops in when this conversation comes up. Maybe he will drop in and say more on this than I have. But to my knowledge, as I said, we do not know there ever was "nothing".

saabsaab · 07-10-2020 04:05PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To you. That's the point I was making. It is an entirely personal subjective response to the reality you perceive. But it says nothing ABOUT that reality OTHER than your response to it.

But you being amazed there is "something" does not mean "nothing" is the default and there being "something" is actually remarkable. It seems that way to you is all. Perhaps there being "something" is the default and is not at all remarkable. And there being "Nothing" would be truly weird and unusual and remarkable or even impossible. Who knows?

The awe we might feel at reality around us should pretty much NEVER be used as a basis for assuming anything factual about that reality.

But we do not know it "happened from nothing", thats the problem. The Big bang was the sudden expansion of a singularity of infinite density and mass. That is not "nothing". It is as much the opposite of nothing as I am able to imagine.

To my knowledge we have no evidence that suggests there ever was "nothing". We simply do not know whether there ever was, or not. It is an open question.

And until someone answers that question, I will neither assume there ever was nothing, nor will I assume there always was something. I remain neutral and open on the question.

We do have a resident poster who claims to be a Theoretical Physicist, or a secondary school teacher, or both. He usually drops in when this conversation comes up. Maybe he will drop in and say more on this than I have. But to my knowledge, as I said, we do not know there ever was "nothing".

I quote from this article on modern Physics

"The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-10-2020 04:12PM

That I am aware of. I am also aware that Laurence Krauss wrote a book on how a universe COULD come from nothing.

But what you might be missing here is that saying it is " eminently plausible " is just discussing how possible it is. It does not one bit suggest it DID come from nothing. We still do not know.

It might seem a subtle difference but in fact there is a chasm of difference between "We have evidence X is possible or plausible" and "We have evidence X actually happened".

When I say that nothingness or somethingness as default is an open question I am referring to the latter. I have no issue at all with the former at this time and it is what your link is about.

It is all interesting stuff. And it is great that such articles tell us what is POSSIBLE. But the reality is we still do not know. And until we do I remain neutral on the question of whether "nothing" ever was a reality. And while I share your awe that anything exists at all.... and I really do.... I will not extrapolate from my subjective awe to any assumptions about that reality.

saabsaab · 07-10-2020 04:21PM

Nobody can be fully objective as as you say we are bound by the limits of our minds. However, i can't see how 'somethingness' is the default.

Scientists believe in a 'block-universe’ where time and space are connected, otherwise known as spacetime.The theory, which is backed up Einstein’s theory of relativity, states that space and time are part of a four dimensional structure where everything thing that has happened has its own co-ordinates in spacetime.
This would allow everything to be ‘real’ in the sense that the past, and even the future, are still there in spacetime – making everything equally important as the present.'

Time may be/is an illusion too.

smacl · 07-10-2020 05:01PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We tend to ignore the majority of data that does not fit a pattern and notice only what we imagine does fit the pattern. And hence see a pattern that is not there. This is how people can think prayer works, that taxi drivers are bad, or that they are psychic.

It is called confirmation bias. We see data that fits our pre-conceived notion of a pattern and simple "miss" the data that does not. Our brain is actually evolved to do this. We can imagine a pattern from a small amount of data. We do not need to see the entire leopard behind a tree to discern there is a lepord there. We see a bit of fur and a few spots and our brain fills in the blanks.

For those who haven't already seen it, the ball counting video illustrates rather nicely, though you do have to concentrate on the question being asked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

saabsaab · 07-10-2020 05:29PM

Humans can see patterns that aren't there, fair enough but they can also make out ones that are too.

Anyway, the most unbiased tool we have, I believe, is mathematics and what is seems to tell us about the universe. Some of what it seems to be saying is amazing to most people.

smacl · 07-10-2020 05:47PM

saabsaab wrote: »

Anyway, the most unbiased tool we have, I believe, is mathematics and what is seems to tell us about the universe. Some of what it seems to be saying is amazing to most people.

I disagree. Mathematics is simply a very concise descriptive language. It can be, and often is, used to describe things that are purely abstract that don't correspond anything physical. We learn more about the universe through speculative theory followed by searching for observations that support or undermine that theory. Sometimes the observations come first. Mathematics is a tool that can help us both develop the theory and understand the observations but it is just a tool.

saabsaab · 07-10-2020 05:53PM

smacl wrote: »

I disagree. Mathematics is simply a very concise descriptive language. It can be, and often is, used to describe things that are purely abstract that don't correspond anything physical. We learn more about the universe through speculative theory followed by searching for observations that support or undermine that theory. Sometimes the observations come first. Mathematics is a tool that can help us both develop the theory and understand the observations but it is just a tool.

Can be but sometimes predictions are made by mathematical formula that are then proved by experiment or later observation as with Einstein's theorys.

Death might be meaningless if time is an illusion.

smacl · 07-10-2020 06:07PM

saabsaab wrote: »

Can be but sometimes predictions are made by mathematical formula that are then proved by experiment or later observation as with Einstein's theorys.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd suggest these are classes of search rather than predictions, e.g. intersections of lines, inflexion points found chasing derivatives, functions of best fit etc.. which are used to locate most probably position of observable phenomena. The prediction is done by the person who suspects the existence of the phenomenon in the first instance.

Death might be meaningless if time is an illusion.

Not sure if I even understand that. Could you elaborate?

saabsaab · 07-10-2020 06:14PM

'The theory, which is backed up Einstein’s theory of relativity, states that space and time are part of a four dimensional structure where everything thing that has happened has its own co-ordinates in spacetime.
This would allow everything to be ‘real’ in the sense that the past, and even the future, are still there in spacetime – making everything equally important as the present.'

If true it really means that time or the past is an illusion and still exists.

sbsquarepants · 08-10-2020 10:28AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To you. That's the point I was making. It is an entirely personal subjective response to the reality you perceive. But it says nothing ABOUT that reality OTHER than your response to it.

But you being amazed there is "something" does not mean "nothing" is the default and there being "something" is actually remarkable. It seems that way to you is all. Perhaps there being "something" is the default and is not at all remarkable. And there being "Nothing" would be truly weird and unusual and remarkable or even impossible. Who knows?

The awe we might feel at reality around us should pretty much NEVER be used as a basis for assuming anything factual about that reality.

This is a very valid point. Just because something amazes us, does not mean it is in and of itself amazing. Take something really spectacular like Niagara or Angel falls or even something like a supernova or a black hole devouring a whole solar system - to me those things are amazing, but in reality they are mundane, they are in fact the only thing which could possibly result from the preceding circumstances over millions, billions of years. They are in "reality" anything but amazing, they are mere default situations.

You think of the most unlikely thing that's ever happened, and the fact that it did happen means the actually probability of it happening was 1. You may not have been able to predict it before hand but that says more about the limits of your ability to accurately compute probability than anything else.

monara · 08-10-2020 11:01AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, by definition, of no interest to yourself either.

I agree

saabsaab · 08-10-2020 11:15AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is a very valid point. Just because something amazes us, does not mean it is in and of itself amazing. Take something really spectacular like Niagara or Angel falls or even something like a supernova or a black hole devouring a whole solar system - to me those things are amazing, but in reality they are mundane, they are in fact the only thing which could possibly result from the preceding circumstances over millions, billions of years. They are in "reality" anything but amazing, they are mere default situations.

You think of the most unlikely thing that's ever happened, and the fact that it did happen means the actually probability of it happening was 1. You may not have been able to predict it before hand but that says more about the limits of your ability to accurately compute probability than anything else.

What is the probability of a supreme being? In an infinity of time in a multiverse?

smacl · 08-10-2020 11:38AM

saabsaab wrote: »

What is the probability of a supreme being? In an infinity of time in a multiverse?

Omnipresent kind of negates any added value for infinite time and a multiverse. Pretty sure the people who invented God weren't really thinking this far ahead

monara · 08-10-2020 12:26PM

Your post was an unreadable mess I am afraid. Between your formatting and your decision to ignore things as being off topic (not your call) there is not much left to reply to.

My apologies for the mess due to my ignorance of the quote system which has now been set right, I think, by the moderator. But you read the mess very well and I thank you for the trouble you went to in doing that.

I find myself in broad agreement with your reasoning subject to the few caveats I set out below. Your perceptive analyses on this and my previous posts have helped me clarify some of my ideas.

We see data that fits our pre-conceived notion of a pattern and simple "miss" the data that does not. Our brain is actually evolved to do this.

I agree. We have all had experience of this.

our brain has evolved towards false positives rather than false negatives

I agree and am considering the epistemological and other implications of this. The bias in interpreting empiric phenomena does not seem to have affected the development of our sciences over the past few hundred years. But then again it may.

The bias may also have affected the development of all our philosophies (theist and atheist) and I have to give this some thought.

Theist apologists have for a long time acknowledged this bias in relation to non-empiric concepts (such our topic) with a tendency towards the positive. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) famously described this bias in relation to the soul. But the existence or otherwise of these concepts as realities lies outside the scope of empiric proof and this seems the general view of posters in this thread.

Thinking there are patterns there which are not, and confirmation bias, are two things the methodology of science is designed to negate.

Again I have to agree. It is important for science to shatter illusions and on that I'm sure we all agree.

I can understand it without declaring they are fit for a mental institution.

Nothing I have said however suggests that, or suggests I think that. You have made this bit up entirely on your own without anything from me.

I agree. The suggestion was entirely my own.

Peregrinus · 08-10-2020 01:00PM

saabsaab wrote: »

What is the probability of a supreme being? In an infinity of time in a multiverse?

smacl wrote: »

Omnipresent kind of negates any added value for infinite time and a multiverse. Pretty sure the people who invented God weren't really thinking this far ahead

Plus, ona common conception of God, the supreme being isn't part of the universe (or multiverse) at all, but precedes it, metaphysically speaking, in something lke the way an author proceeds a book.

You might argue that the observed existence of one quite short book implies the existence of an author, even though we'll admittedly never observe the author by examining the book. But I don't think you could argue that the existence of a large number of very long books implies the existence of an author any more strongly. If any book can exist without an author to account for it, then why not all of them? If no book can exist without an author to account for it, then one book is sufficient to prove that there is an author.

sbsquarepants · 08-10-2020 01:13PM

saabsaab wrote: »

What is the probability of a supreme being? In an infinity of time in a multiverse?

Depends what you mean by a supreme being I suppose. Something that exists outside of the normal laws of nature i pressume?

Could some super advanced kid be running the whole universe we know as a game on his phone? I suppose so.

Could he be governed by completely different laws of nature? I suppose he could.

But i think he would have to be governed by some laws of some nature. I think the odds of any being existing completely outside of nature is zero.

saabsaab · 08-10-2020 02:00PM

They said that if you had a group of monkeys typing away for infinity you would eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare!

If you have an infinity and perhaps of multiverses an all powerful being could exist at one point. If that is ever possible then it has or will if you accept that time is an illusion we are probably part of that now.

John Hutton · 08-10-2020 02:09PM

Are the multiverses identical or entirely random in all aspects?

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-10-2020 11:32AM

saabsaab wrote: »

Nobody can be fully objective as as you say we are bound by the limits of our minds. However, i can't see how 'somethingness' is the default.

So? There are lots of things, especially in Quantum Theory, that I can not see because it is so off and strange and weird. It does not stop it being true however. Things like "Action at a distance" for example and quantum entanglement.

Again it is just subjectivity. Subjectively it is weird or odd to you. But so what? That does not tell you what is actually true or false.

monara · 09-10-2020 12:16PM

There are lots of things, especially in Quantum Theory, that I can not see because it is so off and strange and weird. It does not stop it being true however.

Yes there are lots of things we cannot see which might be true. And then again, they might'nt.

What do you believe happens when we die

Comments